Monday, May 10, 2010

Could The NYC Bomber Be A Jihadist?

Once again, after the initial hype, the Obama administration was shocked, shocked, to discover that the perpetrator of the failed New York City car-bomb attack might have ties to Islamic terrorist philosophy and training. How could this be? We all know that Islam is the religion of peace. And we all know that "jihad" means "personal struggle of the soul," not "kill all the infidels."

As the early events unfolded in Times Square, the MSM and the Obama administration were mystified by who could be behind such a heinous act. Did someone resurrect Timothy McVeigh? Did a psycho escape from a hospital for the criminally insane? Has "Mars Attacks" become real life? What could it be, and who could possibly be behind it? Many warnings were issued from the very beginning. Not about the obvious, but rather about drawing unwise conclusions that it might be a Muslim wreaking havoc on the heart of American commerce. After all, such a thing has never happened before, has it?

Once it quickly became obvious even to cheese-eating surrender monkeys what was going on, the MSM, the administration, and the left-wing blogs started spinning their fabric of denial. At The Nation, leftist Robert Dreyfuss said that rather than part of global jihad, "it seem far more likely to me that he was either a lone nut job or a member of some squirrely branch of the Tea Party, anti-government far right." Very reasonable, since there have been so many mass murders committed by the Tea Party recently. Or do I have the wrong group?

As more and more information on the perpetrator piled up, the spin went from "probably not a Muslim" to "well, he's a Muslim, but . . . . " Hizzoner NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg immediately understood what was really behind it all. "Somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything." Trying the insanity defense, Pakistani embassy spokesman Nadeem Haider Kiani said "it's too soon to tell exactly what motivated the bomber, but early indications suggest he is a 'disturbed individual.'" In fact, over 15,000 Muslim terrorist attacks and attempts worldwide have been documented since 9-11, but only a very few were conducted by persons who were both hate-filled jihadists and certifiably insane.

CNN found another motivation proving that Faisal Shahzad's attempted mass-murder and mayhem had little to do with his religious beliefs: "It has been confirmed that his house has been foreclosed in recent years. I mean, one would have to imagine that brought a lot of pressure and a lot of heartache on that family." That report didn't mention that those payments could easily have been made if the jihadist hadn't spent all that money on trips to Taliban training camps in the border areas of Pakistan. CBS announced "It isn't clear if more suspects are at large, or what the motive could be."

The Washington Post went on a slightly different flight of fancy: "The economic crisis meets terrorism. This guy is like string theory for the media: He brings together the seemingly incompatible stories that drove the past decade. That said, you of course don't want to speculate on why someone 'really' did something. The hearts of men are opaque, and motives are complex." Yep, it's far too complicated for mere mortals to put two and two together. "Kill the infidels" is far too complicated a concept to break down into easily understood terms.

The New York Post is normally very blunt and very clear in its news and editorials on terrorism. But even they fell into the trap of over-complicating something quite simple. They didn't excuse the act, but attempted to "understand" it: "Shahzad said he was driven to evil by the slew of deaths among leaders of the the terror group (the Taliban) . . . Sources said he was an eyewitness to the onslaught throughout the eight months he spent in Pakistan last summer." You mean the months he wasn't paying the monthlies on his mortgage? Aha! Two reasons to blow up Times Square.

And I still remain unclear on how being motivated by the deaths of Taliban terrorists is unrelated to Islamic terrorism. The next day, The NY Post partially redeemed itself by publishing a piece from Michelle Malkin on how this creep got his citizenship. After a couple of failed attempts at gaining citizenship, the future car-bomber caught on to the sham marriage scam. He, like many of his fellows, conned a dumb American citizen into marrying him, and thus he went to the head of the line for becoming naturalized. Instead of using that against him, the administration is now treating him as a foreigner, but with full American constitutional rights. In reality, that citizenship should be used to add the further charge of treason, one of the few remaining death-penalty federal charges.

By the following day, with much of the information collected and the terrorist in the sights of law-enforcement, the litany continued. NY-1 TV in New York reported "investigators say they still have no motive for Shahzad's actions." AP reported: "NY car bomb suspect cooperates, but motive a mystery." USA Today said "motive of NYC car bomb suspect remains a mystery." And across the pond, The Guardian reported "Times Square bomb: Pakistanis puzzled by bomber's motive."

There's insanity out there all right, and the terrorists are far more sane than the people reporting on them. There is a worldwide collective insanity (outside of Islam itself) that can't find the 500 pound gorilla in the room. These people are either completely blind to the facts, or willfully cooperating with the terrorists, or terrified by, well, terrorism, to the point of deluding themselves. Whatever their reasons for ignoring, then denying, then twisting the motives of terrorist after terrorist after terrorist, they are dangerous fellow-travelers with militant Islam. And it's nothing short of suicidal.

Worst of all, the people we depend on the most to protect us from terrorist attacks are apparently drugged with Islamophilia. It took nearly a day and a half for Attorney General Eric Holder to slip (?) and use the word "terrorism." And this was during an address while he was idiotically trying to explain why the terrorist was Mirandized. As Islamic terror expert Daniel Pipes phrased it: "You can't win a war if you don't have the courage to name the enemy." The current administration absolutely lacks that courage. May God preserve, protect and defend the United States, because Barack Hussein Obama certainly won't.

27 comments:

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I've got it! The attacker was a bottle-fed baby and his father used to beat him when he pooped in his pants. That is why he is so misunderstood.

Maybe some of the MSM wet nurses can alleviate his pain? :-)

AndrewPrice said...

Now that the evidence is overwhelming, Team Obama is finally admitting a link to the Pakistani Taliban, though I'm not sure they have any idea what the motive could be. Maybe they think the Taliban are upset that it took so long to pass universal health care?

BevfromNYC said...

Now...I know we shouldn't trust the Pakistani Taliban, but they DID admit they were behind the attempted bombing about two hours after the bomb was diffused...

LawHawkSF said...

Joel: Also, his mother smoked while she was pregnant with him, and they served non-organically grown food while he was growing up. All it took was three sugary soft-drinks to put him over the top. At last, we have the solution.

LawHawkSF said...

Andrew: It's probably just that NYC has too many statues of human beings. If there had been a large Buddha or two in Times Square, we could be absolutely sure.

LawHawkSF said...

Bev: A lot of Islamist groups tend to jump into taking credit for terror activities, but in this case, it came out quite early that he had made several trips to Pakistan's border regions where the Taliban training camps are located. In any event, I was pretty sure it wasn't a rogue group of Southern Baptists, or even PETA.

HamiltonsGhost said...

Lawhawk--I just heard leftist defense Ron Kuby explain the whole Miranda flap better than anyone on the left or right side of the issue. He actually said that Eric Holder didn't have the guts to admit that giving Miranda rights to terrorist is unnecessary and a political trick that nobody should actually buy into.

Writer X said...

Eric Holder and the other MSM lemmings are angrier at Arizona than they are at that nutjob Fahzad and his jihadist brothers. It's gotten to the point that when Eric Holder comes on the television, he sounds like he's hawking ginsu knives. I keep waiting for him to say, "But, wait, there's more!"

BevfromNYC said...

Lawhawk: He was probably upset about the pending TAX on sugary soft drinks!

BevfromNYC said...

Well, I have to agree with you, Writer X, have you heard much about the La Raza UCLA rally? Here's a clip - (sorry, I can't link it in one word)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGqPo5ofk0s

Where's Napolitano and why isn't she arresting La Raza members?

LawHawkSF said...

HamiltonsGhost: And he's right. This is all part of the "civil liberties/criminal law model" nonsense that is falling flat on its face with the public. It's very simple. Miranda is a rule of evidence, not a bar to questioning. In a civilian case, anything said to the investigators if the person being interrogated is a suspect (other than "excited utterances" and a couple of other exceptions) before the Miranda warning cannot be used against the defendant at a later trial. And that includes anything he says that directly leads to incriminating evidence ("fruit of the poisonous tree"). He can still be prosecuted, but that "confession" and facts derived from it cannot be used.

But consider the panty-bomber. A plane-full of witnesses and professionals saw him attempt to blow up the plane. Miranda warnings have no bearing on the prosecution in a case like that, because that evidence and testimony would come in at trial with or without Miranda ("inevitable discovery").

But after Miranda has been given, some dangerous terrorists are going to clam up. And at that point, we are likely to lose important information. So far, the panty-bomber and the Times Square Bomber have been big-mouthed idiots who just can't shut up. But we can't count on that in the future. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad didn't say a word until he was given swimming lessons, but with or without Miranda, nothing he said thereafter could be used against him. But considerable valuable foreign intelligence and terror plot information was gained.

And so what if it can't be used at subsequent trials? They're not mere criminals who must now be released back into society. As enemy combatants, they can simply be shipped off to Guantanamo for the duration. And that's the Holder/Obama political problem. They promised to close Guantanamo, and now, as terrorist murder attempts continue on our soil, they're hoist on their own petard.

LawHawkSF said...

WriterX: There haven't been this many people on a president's "enemies list" since Nixon. But this is the first time a president and his radical administration have purposely excluded the obvious real enemies from the list while retaining the Nixonian equivalence of "enemy" and "political opponent."

Arizona has taken action against what is clearly a foreign invasion, so Arizonans must be enemies, right?

LawHawkSF said...

Bev: I don't think the sugar tax would have bothered him. He would just hire Tim Geithner to give him tax-advice.

LawHawkSF said...

StanH: I wish I could find some good in the leftist support and coddling of Islamic terrorists, but at best I can only see that some of the acts (panty-bomber, Times Square bomber) are less horrific than others (Ft. Hood). That may wake up a good portion of the electorate, but we have nearly three years of Obama left.

God forbid I should be right, but I truly fear that Americans are going to continue to die on American soil because of the cowardly, deaf, dumb and blind accommodationist actions of this administration.

Writer X said...

Lawhawk, from what I understand from the clown known as Eric Holder, he can't wait to press the SEND button on a lawsuit against Arizona--after he makes sure that Fahzad has his prayer rug, Koran, and three ethnically-prepared meals a day.

LawHawkSF said...

WriterX: That sounds about right. Arizona is a foreign terrorist nation, while all of the nations in the Middle East are just friendly nations we haven't won over yet. Not to mention rogue nation Arizona has declared war on our important ally, Mexico.

CalFederalist said...

LawHawk. I notice that Holder now wants legislation to change the Miranda rule. Isn't that just more political grandstanding to make these cowards look "strong on terror?"

LawHawkSF said...

CalFed: Exactly right. Miranda is a Supreme Court ruling. Unless they want to challenge the Supreme Court, such a statute would not pass constitutional muster. It's all showboating. As I mentioned above, Miranda is just an evidentiary rule, which determines what can be used and what can't be used against a criminal defendant at a later trial. It doesn't stop the interrogators from asking any damned question they want, without Miranda even coming into play at the point of interrogation.

And while we're at it, the "public safety" exception that these legal geniuses keep talking about doesn't really apply in these situations either. "Do you own a gun?" is not a proper question for a pre-Mirandized criminal suspect. "Do you have a gun on your person, or nearby?" is an exception, for public safety. But these aren't criminal defendants, no matter how hard the Obama administration tries to convince us they are. They are terrorists, and enemy combatants. The public safety exception has next-to-nothing to do with questioning them prior to Mirandizing them, except possibly to ask "do you have a bomb strapped to your chest?"

patti said...

law: so much of what you write causes mini-head 'splosions. but your last line, well, i say start and end my days with that prayer. may god help us.

Tennessee Jed said...

I'm not sure if we can survive two more years of Obama let alone 6.

LawHawkSF said...

Patti: You're doing well. I used to tell my constitutional law students that the minute they started feeling comfortable with me, I knew I was doing something wrong. Not to mention I developed a pretty accurate aim with the chalk (I'm from the pre-Power Point generation).

LawHawkSF said...

Tennessee: I know exactly that same feeling. But if we don't get overconfident, and do what we have to do to take Congress back, he'll be much less of a danger. That doesn't give me much comfort when it comes to foreign policy, however. But at least he won't be signing any treaties giving away American sovereignty if we do our job right.

patti said...

law: lol! when i can snatch that piece of chalk....

it's not your fault, it's the reality of what we write about that causes me anguish. now hand me some of that chalk. i need some target practice.

LawHawkSF said...

Patti: Awww, I wouldn't do that to you. You're the teacher's pet. LOL

I gotta tell ya, watching these "legal experts" misstate and misapply the Constitution has given me more than a few ulcers and migraines. I expect laymen to struggle with the legal niceties, but I have a right to expect better of alleged law professors and administration policy-makers.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I'm just wondering here, but is it possible that it was the Pakistani Taliban, but it had nothing to do with Islam? Maybe they were just upset about some bacon they ordered from a nearby butcher? ;-)


Ok, I'm kidding. You'd have to be an idiot or the mayor of New York or an Obama Administration lackey to think this had anything to do with anyone other than Islamic terrorists.

LawHawkSF said...

Andrew: Maybe it was the progressive wing of the Taliban. They eat ham, but they still kill infidels. Just a thought.

AndrewPrice said...

"The progressive wing" -- LOL!

Post a Comment